Media Complicit and Lacking in Duty

*Traditional beliefs simply don’t fit the UN vision for 21st Century communities. To find more universal values,The UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) met June 3-14, 1996 in Istanbul. Leaders convened a day-long “Dialogue” on the meaning of Solidarity at the elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel members included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, and Maurice Strong who led the 1992 UN conference on environment.

“I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and prestige,” began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. “They are bringing the spiritual dimension-the only ingredient that can bind societies together.” He had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), “one of the spiritual lights of the media industry today.”

This hand-picked “interfaith group” left little doubt that solidarity meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or world-view). “Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you,” said Millard Fuller, President of Habitat for Humanity.

“Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together,” said Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. “The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity…. We have to redefine the words… [and write a new] social contract.”

“We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities,” added Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. “It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.” Later he added, “The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism.”

Race to Global Governance and Loss of US Sovereignty

“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
-Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

*In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:

“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”

”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

*Please take the time to read this snip from an old RMN article:

*…placing Strong in charge of U.N. reform could pose a significant threat to the American way of life as Strong has used his position to centralize power in the U.N. at the expense of national sovereignty.

*Journalist Elaine Dewar interviewed Strong and wrote about him in her book Cloak of Green. She writes, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Also:

“He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”

That “unfettered power” led to his role in creating the Kyoto Protocol.

*In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to WEST magazine, where he described how he envisioned the Earth being saved:

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The socialist agenda

*This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the the collective vision of “sustainable development.” They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic regulations, and social equity. Agenda 21, the UN blueprint for global transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people. Drafted for the purpose of creating “sustainable societies”, it has been welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet. They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science. Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs. After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs? Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market for “self-sustaining communities,” and single dwellings for dense “human settlements” (located on transit lines) where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal? The answer is simple. Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental “scientists” who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful “information” will lead to economic and social disaster. Even so, local and national leaders around the world are following the UN blueprint for global management and “sustainable communities,” and President Clinton is leading the way. A letter I received from The President’s Council on Sustainable Development states that – “In April 1997, President Clinton asked the council to advise him on: next steps in building a new environmental management system for the 21st century… and policies that foster U.S. leadership on sustainable development internationally. The council was also charged to ensure that social equity issues are fully integrated…” (Emphasis added) Many of our representatives are backing his plan. In a 1997 letter congratulating the Local Agenda 21 Advisory Board in Santa Cruz for completing their Action Plan, Congressman Sam Farr wrote, “The Local Agenda 21 Action Plan not only has local significance, it also will have regional and national impacts. As you know, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development is beginning Phase III of its work with an emphasis on sustainable communities.” (emphasis added) This agenda may already be driving your community ís “development”, so be alert to the clues. Notice buzzwords such as “visioning,” “partners,” and “stakeholders.” Know how to resist the consensus process. Ask questions, but don’t always trust the answers.

*China is a special place for Strong, a self-declared, life-long socialist. It is the burial place of a woman said to be one of his relatives, the famous pro-communist American journalist Anna Louise Strong, a vociferous supporter of Lenin and Stalin until the mid-‘30s, and a strong booster of Mao Zedong’s China. Maurice Strong’s presence in Beijing, however, raises awkward questions: For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.

Strong has refused to answer questions from FOX News about the nature of his business in China, though he has been linked in press reports to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America, and a spokesman for the U.S.-based firm that had invited him to speak in San Francisco, Cleantech Venture Network, says he has recently been “instrumental” in helping them set up a joint venture in Beijing. Strong’s assistant in Beijing did confirm by e-mail that he has an office in a Chinese government-hosted diplomatic compound, thanks to “many continuing relationships arising from his career including 40 years of active relationships in China.”

And from China, Strong has to this day maintained a network of personal and official connections within the U.N. system that he has long used to spin his own vast web of non-governmental organizations, business associates and ties to global glitterati. Within that web, Strong has developed a distinctive pattern over the years of helping to set up taxpayer-funded public bureaucracies, both outside and within the U.N., which he then taps for funding and contacts when he moves on to other projects.

The current financial crisis provides an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the patterns of international cooperation, investment and production. New sustainable development trajectories are to be sought, based on low-carbon, clean technologies, with a large component of renewable energy sources. In fact, there are important synergies to be expected from integrating climate and energy related investments into strategies addressing the economic downturn, for example the employment gains of shifting towards renewable energy. A ‘shared vision’ based on the essential premise of the UNFCCC convention—common but diff erentiated responsibilities and capabilities will be the basis of any new international agreement agreed in Copenhagen. Negotiating parties must ensure that this shared vision show a clearand strong commitment to the overall objective of sustainable development and catch-up growth in developing countries. It should also include equity considerations such as poverty reduction and convergence in terms of income distribution and emissions per capita.

The rise of unions / acorn type organizations

*The US Network for Habitat II (led by Strong) is one of a myriad of national and international UN organizations committed to carry out the UN plan in local communities. “The Network is a forum for making sure people are heard,” explained one of its leaders. “Its role is to tie together the messages from all six UN conferences into practical action.”

“Partnerships will be increasingly important,” he continued. “People in faith communities can help us. We use the African proverb: “‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ …Collaboration links…government, the private sector, and the civil sector.”

Do you see the resemblance to the “People’s Government” that characterized the local “soviets” in the former USSR? Lenin knew he couldn’t win through representative democracy, so he organized local assemblies called Soviets. Linked through a national federation of Soviets, each local Soviet was ruled by the uneducated proletariat, the “raw material to be molded by an audacious leader”skilled in the use of propaganda. Private merchants, landlords, and priests were excluded from leadership. The chosen elites were supervised and disciplined by rulers at a higher level. Few dared complain. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, “There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.”

The UN plan matches US plans. The UN agenda fits well into the policy-making framework already being established in US communities. Three official plans for transforming cities show how UN tactics for change works hand-in-globe with US strategies.

In 1995, school districts from coast to coast were asked to use Education Secretary Riley’s Community Action Toolkit to change public opinion and win support for Goals 2000. In 1996, two similar plans for local transformation were introduced:

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, the Habitat II action plan based on Agenda 21, the environmental program negotiated at the 1992 UN World Conference on Environment and Development.

Sustainable America: A New Consensus, a report by The President’s Council for Sustainable Development.

The striking similarity between the three plans suggest an alarming cooperation between the UN and US authors. All three share the following buzzwords or concepts: partnerships, consensus, lifelong learning, baselines or benchmarks, monitoring, assessment, data gathering, systemic change, system thinking, social development, etc. All stress the need to measure, assess, and monitor progress.

All are designed to bypass traditional government and govern people through a form of “citizens” or “grassroots participation” which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as “totalitarian democracy” and Communist leaders have called “People’s Government.” In the US, this system is already bypassing both state and national representative governments. As in Lenin’s Soviets, neither UN forums nor the US community meetings on education will acknowledge dissenting voices. Resisters are silenced by trained facilitators who only record voices that echo the “right” ideology.

Health care “reform” agenda

Touted as one of the most well connected men on the planet, Strong has used his extensive web of high level international connections to advance the demise of national sovereignty, democracy and traditional religion and other elements he believes are causing an over-populous and environmentally-irresponsible humanity to endanger the planet.

Ed note: Cutting medicare to seniors is another way to introduce population control. As well, the UN strongly believes in womens reproductive rights and has mandated funding for birth control methods, including abortion. This covenant in Agenda 21 and other UN programs to control population is the driving force in the “reform” now being proposed – this is why it really is not about reforming health care, but rather instituting population control in a way most Americans would be oblivious to

Cap and trade

*Strong in an interview at WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – WASHINGTON, D.C. on APRIL 4, 2001 was asked about biodiversity and smart growth helping with energy issues: Absolutely and also paradox, we are going to see higher energy prices, and higher energy prices will provide a very strong incentive for people to use energy more efficiently [JV: like giving a dog a bone]. Not that one should advocate high prices, but high prices are not all bad, they will permit people, and even [encourage] people to use energy more efficiently.

*Why am I not surprised to see his name involved with cap-and-trade? Let’s see, he was involved in Oil for Food, and cash funneled via U.N. agencies to North Korea, and under Kofi Annan received a million dollar check bankrolled by Saddam Hussein’s U.N.-sanctioned regime that was delivered by Tongsun Park—Maurice Strong embodies all that is sinister and shady.

Today he is involved in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only firm in the U.S. that trades carbon credits, no doubt because he cares about the environment.

Out of control governement spending and economic justice

*Maurice Strong: The unsustainable nature of our current economic system was dramatically revealed by both the climate change and the economic crises. They are inextricably linked on a systemic, integrated basis and cannot be managed as separate and competing issues.

The climate change challenge requires us to make changes in the fundamental nature and functioning of our economic system and resist the temptation merely to patch up the existing system to enable to continue, however, temporally, on the pathway that led to its crisis.

Only through fundamental change can we transcend these crises and rebuild the economic and social foundations of our civilization to ensure its survival and sustainability….

*…according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, [ratifying Kyoto] could cost the economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility rates by 86 per cent, hike the cost of heating oil by 76 per cent, and impose a permanent “Kyoto gasoline tax” of 66 cents per gallon. In total, each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy. WEFA, an economic information and consulting firm, reports that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and manufacturing wages cut by 2.1 per cent.

* “This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse,” continued Strong, warming to his fantasy. “It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. “They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close…” Strong catches himself. “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”

* Strong, the executive coordinator of the reform effort at the UN and senior advisor to the President of the World Bank, has one goal: to shape a peaceful and equitable future for all humankind….

Unemployment rates

Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

Loss of the “American Lifestyle”

According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012. People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food. The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order. Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.

It is both power lust and an all-consuming hatred of the United States of America that elevated this deadly duo to ogre status. Fortunately for all of those searching for answers, much of their plan for the world, post November 4, 2008 is already mapped out in writing. Leading economic experts and Strong agree that in 2012 people will be going hungry.

Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition, He is now in a position to implement them.” (Henry Lamb, The Rise of Global Governance, available at soverignty.net). “His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:

“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.

*Strong also directs the U.N.’s Business Council on Sustainable Development. Under his leadership, the council tries to affect peoples’ lives through U.N. policies that attempt to reduce the availability of meat products; limit the use of home and workplace air conditioners; discourage private ownership of motor vehicles; encroach on private property rights; and work to reduce the number of single family homes.

The grab for control of our waterways

The California man made drought,which affects the American food supply, was caused by the federal government enforcing the Endangered Species Act, which has a rich history of robbing landowners of their rights. A closer look is warranted at the parties involved.

The lead Plaintiff in the water cut off is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a false environmental agency, with an $ 87 million dollar budget, funded by the Ford Foundation, which is infamous for their affiliation with eugenics during WWII. The NRDC is operating against freedom and toward control of the masses as evidenced by their website; the legislative bills that visitors are encouraged to support include the Clean Water Restoration Act, which could federalize all water and the Law of Sea Treaty which would hand over unprecedented power to the United Nations on American marine waterways. Further, the NRDC works with the UN World Bank, which is notorious for water privatization . ( Maurice Strong- Senior Advisor to the United Nations and World Bank) The NRDC is a proud member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN was created by the UN (Sir Julian Huxley of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to provide a more scientific base), advises the UN and develops treaties. The IUCN is active in identifying endangered species and one of their members include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the agency that has the power to list endangered species. The IUCN frequently collaborates with the UN World Bank.

Laurance Rockefeller is named on the Board of Trustees of the NRDC. His family and the tax exempt Rockefeller Foundation have created and financed countless UN agencies and programs. The Rockefeller Foundation has gifted grants to the UN Population Council, which has its roots in eugenics, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and the UN World Bank. Read the transcript from Senator Norm Dodds’ interview with G. Edward Griffin for more information on the traitorous Rockefeller and Ford Foundations (http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html).

The Robert Redford Building houses the NRDC office in Los Angeles, and he is on the NRDC Board of Trustees. Robert Redford incessantly promotes man made global warming (which is based on corrupt science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control), as well as Sustainable Development which, through the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment report, advocates erasing humans from 50% of the landscape and massive depopulation. Further, he is on the Global Council on Awakening Arts and Entertainment, which is closely related to the Club of Budapest, a branch of the Club of Rome, an organization famous for writing that they would use pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages and famine to unite them, and then named humanity as the enemy.

Indoctrination of our children

…“Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than twenty years.” (Page 90, The Rise of Global Governance). “That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various U.N. agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is s testament to the effectiveness of the U.N.’s education program.”

Remember, political activists, like self-proclaimed education “change agents”, have put expediency above integrity. As North Carolina school superintendent Jim Causby said at a 1994 international model school conference, “We have actually been given a course in how not to tell the truth. You’ve had that course in public relations where you learn to put the best spin on things.”

*“Agenda 21″ is now the earth’s new gospel. I believe that in the future it just may replace “The Communist Manifesto.” Ever read it? Your children are being taught it in their elementary schools through college. Furthermore, there are high school environmental clubs that are being taught to protest.

“PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Global warming issues took over lecture halls in colleges across the country (the United States) Thursday, with more than 1,500 universities participating in what was billed as the nation’s largest-ever “teach-in.”

Organizers said the goal of the event, dubbed “Focus the Nation,” was to move past preaching to the green choir, to reach a captive audience of students in many fields who might not otherwise tune in to climate change issues.

Faculty members from a wide spectrum of disciplines — from chemistry to costume design — agreed to incorporate climate change issues into their lectures on Thursday. Community colleges and some high schools also took part.

“It’s about infusing sustainability into the curriculum of higher education, so students can graduate prepared to deal with the world they have been handed,” said Lindsey Clark, 23, who organized events at the University of Utah.

Funding of the IMF and World Bank

.. “A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council. The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO—virtually all finance and development activities—would be under the authority of this body. There would be no veto power by any nation. (Italics CFP’s). Nor would there be permanent member status for any nation.”

I love how this works: Barack Obama pledged $100 billion in foreign aid to help bail out the ailing International Monetary Fund in April. Only after he announced it did he go to Congress and make his case for the money. And yesterday, Obama water-carriers on the Hill cooked up a fuzzy math scheme to make it all work. Voila! $108 billion

Government take over of General Motors

Encourage China to invest in the Big Three, to ensure their survival through the use of Chinese components

By Maurice F. Strong

It is surely clear that the bailout of the U.S. automobile industry will not resolve its fundamental problems. But it could provide the time for a new approach that accords with the realities of the industry and can contribute to a resolution of its problems.

While I would not pretend to be an expert on the automobile industry, the close association I have had with it and my concern with its impacts on the environment — particularly the risks of climate change — have convinced me that radical changes are needed in the design and the use of automobiles. The need is particularly urgent in making the transition from fossil fuels to more environmentally benign alternatives and to develop new people-friendly approaches to transportation.

It would be unrealistic to expect that this can be done by denying ownership to people in China, India and other developing countries. The automobile industry is experiencing a growth that can be slowed down and rationalized but cannot be stopped. A prime example: The need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from autos is urgent and immediate. It cannot be achieved without giving high priority to the development of alternatives to oil and gas as their fuel, and to improved judgment and greater care in vehicle utilization. To be sure, some promising technologies and approaches are being developed, but thus far none are being developed on a scale that can be expected to meet this need in sufficient time.

The current crisis in the industry makes it possible to break new ground in resolving this fundamental dilemma in ways that would have been seen as unrealistic before the crisis. The Chinese have always regarded crises as creating opportunities. Now China could play a major role in helping to rescue the U.S. automobile industry while contributing to resolving the economic and environmental issues confronting the industry worldwide.

China’s domestic industry has been developing rapidly. Chinese companies are already moving into international markets and are inevitably targeting the U.S. market. While they have yet to meet the rigorous quality standards required, it is only a matter of time before they achieve this. In the meantime, the Chinese have provided U.S. and other foreign companies with some of their most profitable markets. And companies of both countries confront the challenge of leading the transition to the post fossil-fuels era.

All of this, I contend, provides a unique opportunity for a new era of co-operation between the Chinese and the North American auto industries in which others, like India, could also participate.

The main elements of such an agreement would be:

1. Encourage and facilitate China to make major investments in General Motors, Ford and Chrysler that would enable them to reconstruct and revitalize their companies on a basis that would ensure their survival and competitiveness, including the use of Chinese components. This would be done through investment by, or joint ventures with, leading Chinese companies.

2. The U.S. and Canadian markets would be opened on a selective basis to Chinese automobiles, which would be marketed through the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler dealer networks, restoring the viability and profitability of dealerships afflicted by the industry crisis.

3. The U.S. companies would have their established positions in the China market secured. They would obtain the right to expand their production and distribution in that market in co-operation with their Chinese partners.

4. The United States, Canada and China would agree to undertake and support a co-operative program of technological development in which their main companies would lead. These developments would be designed to produce a new generation of environmentally benign, people-friendly automobiles with particular focus on the development of alternatives to fossil fuels as well as alternative approaches to personal transportation

There is no question that the negotiation of such an agreement, involving the governments of the countries as well as their industry leaders, would be difficult and complex. But the massive economic and environmental benefits that would accrue to them, and indeed to the entire world, provide a powerful incentive to undertake it. The new administration in the United States and the demonstrated capacity of the Chinese government to manage the processes of fundamental change make this challenging opportunity unique.

The attempt to diminish religion

*Maurice Strong hinted at the overtly pagan agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio Conference delegates he said, “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.” [note: Alice Bailey, and Blavatsky before her, used these terms often. Their writings state that the ‘force of darkness’ are those who adhere to the ‘out-dated’ Judeo-Christian faith; those who continue along their ‘separative’ paths of the one true God. The ‘force of light’ (Lucifer), in their view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. In the New Age of Aquarius there will be no room for the ‘force of darkness’ and ‘separativeness’.] “We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the SUPERIOR LAWS OF DIVINE NATURE,” Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.

*The GBA concluded on page 763 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that- “This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”

*Strong is also involved in the U.N. Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Through his work in UNESCO, Strong promotes Gaia, the Earth God(dess), among the world’s youth. Strong is also the director of The Temple of Understanding in New York. He uses The Temple to encourage Americans concerned about the environment to replace Christianity with the worship of “mother earth.”

*Touted as one of the most well connected men on the planet, Strong has used his extensive web of high level international connections to advance the demise of national sovereignty, democracy and traditional religion and other elements he believes are causing an over-populous and environmentally-irresponsible humanity to endanger the planet.

For years, conservative intellectuals have derided those who voiced concerns about Strong’s Earth Charter and his plans for the demise of Christianity. However, earlier this year the Vatican warned against the “global ethics” which are the origin and core of the Earth Charter. In an article published in L’Osservatore Romano on February 11, Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers warned that the aim of the program was to supplant Christian values with a “global ethic.”

The Archbishop called the ‘global ethic’ movement an eco-religion which holds “sustainable development” as the highest good. He said it manifests itself “as a new spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have been unable to preserve the ecosystem.” In a word, this is “a new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer, a new God that is the earth itself with the name GAIA,” he said. “The different religions existing in the world have been unable to generate this global ethic; therefore, they must be replaced by a new spirituality, which has as its end global well-being, within sustainable development,” explained Archbishop Barragán.

“FEMA Camps”??? Threats to Freedom of Speech?

But in Maurice Strong’s New World, NGOs will flag the new order about truth tellers: “The Commission (on Global Governance) believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” (Italics CFP’s).

And Corruption is not lost on Maurice Strong either:

*At a World Bank Conference on sustainable development several years ago, when economist Joseph Stiglitz presented this concept, I asked him if he was basically “bringing a new company public or a stock to market” in creating this permit-trading system. He answered, “Yes,” and with a very large grin said, “And we will do very well!” Within the last year, a carbon-trading market was established in Chicago.

Interestingly enough, Maurice Strong is one of its directors. Furthermore, it has been suggested that if the price of energy went up, it would encourage people to change to more efficient technologies, thus reducing carbon in the air. Can you imagine the profit insiders and interested parties would make on another oil embargo, let alone the money they will make bartering the carbon trading permits?

*Along the way, Strong has also been caught up in a series of U.N. scandals and conflicts of interest. These extend from the notorious Oil-for-Food program to the latest furor over cash funneled via U.N. agencies to the rogue regime of North Korea, which involves, among other things, Strong’s creative use of a little-known, U.N.-chartered educational institution called the University for Peace. Above all, the tale of Maurice Strong illustrates the way in which the U.N., with its bureaucratic culture of secrecy, its diplomatic immunities, and its global reach, lends itself to manipulation by a small circle of those who best know its back corridors. …

*Instead of helping poor countries and poor people the machinations of Strong, Gore and the IPCC are reaping the rewards of their activities while the people pay the price. The people are paying in other ways as governments use IPCC reports to justify carbon taxes and other restrictive, punitive and expensive regulations. A huge industry has erupted as the UK newspaper the Telegraph reported. “Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO’s are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.” So, the very people and industries the environmentalists and socialists despise are doing what they do best – make money.

I have not seen Capitalism, A Love Story. I never intend to see it. I do know this. Public records show that for one of his vacation homes, Mr. Moore and his wife own a lakeside retreat in Northern Michigan. In the Tax Assessor’s opinion, the home and extra lot (wonder if he’ll sell that to Obama?) have an estimated value over $2,000,000. He should love capitalism. That’s one of who knows how many houses he owns. The tax bill gets mailed to a Park Ave, NY address. Per celebnetworth website http://www.celebnetworth.com/richest-celebrities/michael-moore-net-worth/ , his net worth is estimated at $25,000,000. Not bad for an anti-capitalist, huh? The money came from you.

Politicians, even democrats who embrace socialist policies, are reporting net worths in the many millions. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has the fourth highest net worth as of her last filing. While not detailed out (they are allowed VAST ranges), her net worth from her own accord is somewhere between $30,000,000 and $132,000,000.

Actors are the highest paid “skill-set” in America. Sean Penn is known for his anti-American, anti-capitalism stance. I find that extremely interesting. Here in America, living by the principles he says he hates so much, he was able to build a net worth estimated at $120,000,000 http://www.celebnetworth.com/richest-celebrities/sean-penn-net-worth/. Go figure. The money came from you.

George Soros, who was detailed here earlier this week ( http://wp.me/pxG9Z-9S ), and who uses his money to purposely overthrow our Constitution and our Republic toward socialist ends, has an estimated net worth at $111,000,000,000. (yeah billion). The money came from you and others like you around the world.

The United Nations, a leader in pushing a worldwide socialist agenda, received last year alone, from you, the hardworking American taxpayer, 22% of it’s annual budget. Their budget is estimated at $4 for every inhabitant of earth, so roughly, that means the US pays nearly $1 for every living human being, every year. That’s a lot of money. Especially when that does not included the $515,000,000 US spends every year to provide security for UN personnel and dignitaries. This money came from you, too.

I could go on and on. I think by now you get my point. All of these people, concerned Capitalism is bad for the world, should of thought of that before they reached into our pockets. Many of us lead paltry lives, you know, clinging to our guns and our bibles, clipping coupons, shopping at Wal-mart, just hoping to get by. They, on the other hand, rape us from every angle. They have taken our money, then sit high on their thrones mocking us. They are trying to take our religion, our guns, our voices and our freedom.

As Americans, fighting for the very promise of America, we need to ban together. No longer can we allow the labels, bequeathed to us by the political class in Washington, to hang around our necks like lead weights on a noose. That’s a tool they use to separate and confuse us. It’s a scam, like nearly everything else they throw at us. We are, first and foremost, Americans. We have let them divide us, but it is my hope we will come together before they conquer us. With the so-called “health care reform” legislation this week, and the promise of “clean energy” legislation next week (neither of which solve the issue they are named for) and other TERDs (Truly Enormously Ridiculous Deeds) they are throwing at us, time is running short.

I have laid out some ideas over the past week on how we can take back our country. For now, though, as detailed, we must fight the battles as they arise. Please, take ten minutes a week to compose an email. Then five minutes or less a day to email it to everyone in government who purports to represent your interest. We need you to call radio shows (both left and right leaning) to voice your dissatisfaction with pending legislation and pending agendas. Make at least one of those calls a week. If you can not do that (some of us are shy), please write a letter to your newspaper editor or attend and speak at a local governmental meeting. Speak clearly and loudly, no matter which way you choose to do so. Every single week. PLEASE. Remember – power goes to the PERCIEVED majority. That’s the mistake we have made. We allowed them to have the loudest voice. Wear a button, get a bumper sticker- what ever you have to do to claim your side.

Keep this in mind, too. Even though they want you to feel ashamed and alone. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. I can tell you, I am certain, there are exponentially more of us than there are of them. They are trained to speak loudly and mock. We need to learn from them. Estimates put their share of the population at 12%. Are we really going to mock our forefathers like they do, by letting a mere minority place us and our kids and grandkids in perpetual servitude to the US government or the UN?

I have included below, a few of the websites available in which you can track net worth data for yourself. There are many others, I am sure. A list of political money tracking sites, and many other watchdog tools, are available to the right of this column, in the Watchdog Tools category. Find out what these hypocrites are worth and let everyone know. We need to point out the hypocrisy they live by. Just as with the Smart Growth and Nature Conservancy agendas.. their motto is.. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too. Simple greed in a new fangled package. Let’s ban together to show them it’s not. What’s ours is ours- the tragedy is now we have to fight to defend it.

They may be mocking us now, but I pray to my God (the one they don’t profess to believe in) we have the last laugh.

Congress members and top officials in the executive branch must file forms covering the preceding calendar year that list their assets and liabilities, their income (excluding their government salaries, oddly), asset transactions, gifts they received and more. They need not list property unless it produces income (so their primary residence is generally not listed), but they must include the source of their spouse’s income.

Conservative Talk Radio- How Those at the FCC Want To Shut It Down- The Official Report – Does this sound Constitutional to You?http://www.americanpr…
From the Center for American Progress, the Soros Progressive Movement now in charge of our government, here is the report the new FCC head and FCC “Diversity” Czar are using to co-opt free speech in America. This is a 40 page pdf document co-authored by Mark Lloyd, the Diversity Czar, himself. Here is a peek:
“As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.

Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast.

These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”

Why Parents Don’t Trust the Educator-in-Chief and His Comrades from Michelle Malkin for CNS Newshttp://cnsnews.com/ne…
They think we’re crazy. “They” are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can’t fathom the backlash against the president’s nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. “We” are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America’s classrooms.

Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to “service” for “change.” Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise “to be a servant to our president.” Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges “to be of service to Barack Obama.” The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: “What’s your pledge?” http://www.youtube.co… (here is the video in question)

This same “Do Something” ethos infected the U.S. Department of Education teachers guides accompanying the announcement of Obama’s speech—until late Wednesday, that is, when the White House removed some of the activist language exhorting students to come up with ways to “help the president.” Education Secretary Arne Duncan had disseminated the material directly to principals across the country—circumventing elected school board members and superintendents now facing neighborhood revolts. O’s bureaucrats can whitewash offending language from the Sept. 8 speech-related documents, but they can’t remove the taint of left-wing radicalism that informs Obama and his education mentors. A spokesman maintained that the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.” But the historical subtext is far less innocent.

The Green “Trojan Horse” from Investors Business Dailyhttp://www.ibdeditori…
Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles. “The green economy will start off as a small subset” of a “complete revolution” away from “gray capitalism” and toward “redistribution of all the wealth,” he said. “And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.” A self-described “communist,” Jones caught heat recently for calling Republicans “a**holes.” He’s also a 9/11 “truther” as it turns out, one of many red flags in a radical past that, remarkably, didn’t disqualify him from shaping domestic policy in this White House. Jones apologized for his “inappropriate” remarks concerning Republicans while distancing himself from the nutty people calling for an investigation of the Bush administration for bombing the Twin Towers on 9/11. Jones signed a petition pushing for such a witch hunt, even though the Ivy League lawyer claims he didn’t know what he was signing. But he hasn’t been made to answer for his communist beliefs, which are even deeper than first thought.

Trying to change the subject, Jones insisted his work at the White House is “entirely focused on one goal: building clean-energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources.” That doesn’t tell the full story. As the president’s “green-jobs czar,” it’s clear Jones has a hidden agenda. Judging from his own words, his environmental concerns appear to be a front for creating a massive new welfare program — complete with paid job training and counseling — for criminals. Jones has a shockingly soft spot for felons. Before joining the White House, he agitated against “the punishment industry,” which he claims profits from a “racist war” against people of color. He has called U.S. prisons “slave ships on dry land” and has served on panels calling for an end to prisons and the freeing of all inmates. The former Oakland, Calif., community organizer has said he wants to “build a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy,” including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices. He secured grants to start a Green Job Corps in Oakland.

In his 2006 memoir, President Obama proposed government-subsidized green jobs “to hire and train ex-felons on projects” such as “insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient.” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who worked with Jones in California as a congresswoman, has already put such plans in motion. Jones’ “green jobs, not jails” program is but a “radical kernel” of what Jones says he wants to reap. He intends to use the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy. “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to ‘eco-capitalism’ where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet,” Jones said. “Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether.”

Beyond our system of capitalism to communism, is what he means. Though Obama’s father was a Marxist, there’s no indication the president subscribes to Jones’ vision. But Obama and Jones share a common background in the same Marxism-steeped faith: Black Liberation Theology, which we first warned voters about years ago. The father of the movement — James Cone — believes that by merging Marxism with the Gospel, African-Americans will be liberated. “Together,” Cone said, “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society.” Cone mentored Obama’s longtime preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a big fan of Marxist regimes. Wright has made a number of comments over the years that have been described as anti-capitalist and anti-American, and that suggest he believes deep conspiracies drive American politics. We also warned that it’s dangerous for a presidential aspirant to surround himself throughout his career with a coterie of radicals. They could wind up in the White House making policy. Van Jones is Exhibit A.

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation. Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs. “The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler. This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.” They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.” “Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The Trouble With Textbooks- a look at how Textbook Publishers are Shaping America by Incorrectly Reporting History from Fox Newshttp://www.foxnews.co…

Hard-edged propaganda now suffuses America’s history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace.Did shielding children from scary words like “mailman” turn them into better students? Compare the test scores in your kids’ school district to those from 1960, and judge for yourself. Or consider this: When asked about the Vietnam War recently, almost a quarter of students described it as a conflict between North and South Korea.

Yet even flat ignorance is better (and certainly more amusing) than the hard-edged propaganda that now suffuses history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two gets almost us much emphasis as the American liberation of Europe. Non-American cultures, by contrast, receive every benefit of every doubt. Try to find a high school textbook that even mentions the widespread practice of slavery among American Indians. Good luck. Even September 11, an event hardly shrouded by the haze of time, gets a rewrite. In Prentice Hall’s textbook on contemporary American history, for instance, the 19 hijackers are not identified as Islamic extremists. Students are left to guess why they did it.

Don’t take my word for it. Make a pledge to yourself to look through your children’s textbooks this year. Take a look at what’s there, but also at what’s missing. If you find bias or distortions, don’t be silent. Raise holy hell. Someday your kids will thank you for it. Check out the Fox Special: “FOX News Reporting: Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading?” on Friday, September 4 from 9 – 10 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel. The special re-air throughout the weekend including on Saturday at 4 and 10 p.m. ET and again on Sunday at 1 a.m., 3 and 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. ET.

“WOULD WE be far wrong,” President Lincoln asked in a special message to Congress in 1861, “if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?” Maybe that’s not exhaustive, but it comes on good authority. And notice that for Lincoln, sovereignty is a political or legal concept. It’s not about power. Lincoln didn’t say that the sovereign is the one with the most troops. He was making a point about rightful authority….

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned. Let me give you an example of how the issue has arisen. In 1919, the United States participated in a conference to establish the International Labour Organization (ILO). The original plan was that the members of the ILO would vote on labor standards, following which the member nations would automatically adopt those standards. But the American delegation insisted that it couldn’t go along with that, because it would be contrary to the Constitution. Specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body, and thus surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. Instead, the Americans insisted they would decide upon these standards unilaterally as they were proposed by the ILO. In the 90 years since joining this organization, I think the U.S. has adopted three of them.

Today there is no longer a consensus regarding this principle of non-delegation, and it has become a contentious issue. For instance, two years ago in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that it should update its standards for a chemical that is thought to be depleting the ozone layer. There is a treaty setting this standard, and the EPA was in conformity with the treaty. But the NRDC pointed out that Congress had instructed the EPA to conform with the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent elaborations. In other words, various international conferences had called for stricter emission standards for this chemical, and Congress had told the EPA to accept these new standards as a matter of course. The response to this by the D.C. Court of Appeals was to say, in effect, that it couldn’t believe Congress had meant to do that, since Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body. This decision wasn’t appealed, so we don’t yet have a Supreme Court comment on the issue.

The delegation of judicial power is another open question today. There’s no doubt that the U.S. can agree to arbitrations of disputes with foreign countries, as we did as early as the 1790s with the Jay Treaty. But it’s another thing altogether to say that the rights of American citizens in the U.S. can be determined by foreign courts. This would seem to be a delegation of the judicial power, which Article 3 of the Constitution says “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This became an issue last year in the case of Medellin v. Texas, which considered an International Court of Justice ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, because he had not been given the chance to consult the Mexican consulate before his trial, as he had the right to do under an international treaty. The Supreme Court, after much hand-wringing, concluded that it didn’t think the Senate had intended to give the International Court of Justice the power to decide these questions of American law as applied by American courts. I would go further and say that no matter what the Senate intended, this is not a power which can be delegated under the Constitution. But it is no longer clear that a majority on the Supreme Court would agree.

Or consider the Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is preposterous. It is akin to piracy. And not only has our government not protested this nonsense, but it has contributed to building up an international atmosphere in which this sort of thing seems plausible—an atmosphere where the old idea of a jury of one’s peers and the idea of Americans having rights under the Constitution give way to the notion of some hazy international standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow agree upon and then enforce on strangers….

It is important to think about these issues regarding sovereignty today, because it is possible to lose sovereignty rather quickly. Consider the European Union. The process that led to what we see today in the EU began when six countries in 1957 signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established a court in Luxembourg—the European Court of Justice—which was to interpret disputes about the treaty. To make its interpretations authoritative, the Court decreed in the early 1960s that if the treaty came into conflict with previous acts of national parliaments, the treaty would take precedence. Shortly thereafter it declared that the treaty would also take precedence over subsequent statutes. And in the 1970s it said that even in case of conflicts between the treaty and national constitutions, the treaty would take precedence. Of course, judges can say whatever they want. What is more remarkable is that all the nations in the EU have more or less grudgingly accepted this idea that a treaty is superior to their constitutions, so that today whatever regulations are cranked out by the European Commission—which is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bureaucracy—supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. And when there was eventually a lot of clamor about protection of basic rights, the court in Luxembourg proclaimed that it would synthesize all the different rights in all the different countries and take care of that as well…..

Watchdog Tools

History Repeats Itself

"Their final objective toward which all their deciet is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection" - Henry A. Wallace, US VP 1941-45

Up until a few years ago, I was happy filling my life with personal issues of family, work, home. Then, I began to notice our once great country is run by a government which has no respect for the Constitution and no respect for us, it's citizens. I realize now it is up to folks like me to change this. I am only one person, but through this blog it is my hope to point out to ordinary Americans how our rights, our liberty, is being threatened. My belief is by shining a bright light, we as a people can begin to peacefully remove the power hungry, self serving autocrats running our government. This is not about one party or another. This is about the very foundation our country was built on. Our foundation is crumbling. Please help me shore it up! Do not be afraid to Speak Out Loudly! Of the people, by the people, for the people. That is how we will get our country back! Please visit our sister site www.WatchdogCentral.org to check up on your government officials - national, state and local.